Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Mark Question » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:07 am

HexHammer wrote:Ginkgo

Difference is, science needs to test thus leading to proof and evidense, philosophy only thinks and spekulates.
In philosophy logical argumentation is The Test. Logical (only empirical) argumentation is also The test in empirical science.

You need philosophy when you try to argument why money or science is the measure of good thinkig or truth for you.

uwot
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by uwot » Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:34 am

HexHammer wrote:Difference is, science needs to test thus leading to proof and evidense, philosophy only thinks and spekulates.
Mr Hammer, do you understand what science claims fundamental particles are made of?

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by HexHammer » Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:31 am

Mark Question wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Ginkgo

Difference is, science needs to test thus leading to proof and evidense, philosophy only thinks and spekulates.
In philosophy logical argumentation is The Test. Logical (only empirical) argumentation is also The test in empirical science.

You need philosophy when you try to argument why money or science is the measure of good thinkig or truth for you.
Yearh, that's why we ended up with concepts such as "spontanious genesis", the Earth is the center of the universe, inqusition, segregation as colored people were 2nd citizen, women under men ..etc.

EVERYTHING was very logically!

uwot
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by uwot » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:58 am

HexHammer wrote:Yearh, that's why we ended up with concepts such as "spontanious genesis", the Earth is the center of the universe,
As it happens, Mr Hammer, these are scientific hypotheses that have subsequently been shown to be untrue. The way science has progressed historically is that people see things happen, they try to explain it, logically and more recently mathematically, then they try to devise experiments that would produce a particular phenomenon if the hypothetical explanation is a good one. Note that the explanation doesn't have to be 'true', it just has to work. For practical purposes, a model that doesn't have a mathematical element is useless, because without being able to measure an effect, we have no real control of it. However, the mathematical analysis frequently comes after the discovery of the event.
HexHammer wrote:inqusition,
Religious bigotry, based on, at best, poor logic.
HexHammer wrote:segregation as colored people were 2nd citizen,
Racist nonsense that logical analysis easily dismantles.
HexHammer wrote:women under men ..etc.
Sexist bollocks, just as easily trashed by logic.
HexHammer wrote:EVERYTHING was very logically!
There's good logic and bad logic, Mr Hammer; just as there is good science and bad science; it is the practitioners which are at fault, not the practise.

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Mark Question » Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:57 am

HexHammer wrote:
Mark Question wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Ginkgo

Difference is, science needs to test thus leading to proof and evidense, philosophy only thinks and spekulates.
In philosophy logical argumentation is The Test. Logical (only empirical) argumentation is also The test in empirical science.

You need philosophy when you try to argument why money or science is the measure of good thinkig or truth for you.
Yearh, that's why we ended up with concepts such as "spontanious genesis", the Earth is the center of the universe, inqusition, segregation as colored people were 2nd citizen, women under men ..etc.

EVERYTHING was very logically!
YES, logical thinking lasts against logical arguments. Your examples did not last.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by HexHammer » Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:01 am

Mark Question wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Yearh, that's why we ended up with concepts such as "spontanious genesis", the Earth is the center of the universe, inqusition, segregation as colored people were 2nd citizen, women under men ..etc.

EVERYTHING was very logically!
YES, logical thinking lasts against logical arguments. Your examples did not last.
I'm not sure you understood the simple points made, try read again.

uwot
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by uwot » Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:29 am

Mr Hammer, I'm not sure you understood the simple points made, try read again.

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Mark Question » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:05 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Mark Question wrote:
HexHammer wrote:This is a good indication of why cozy chatters (socalled philosophers) are utterly useless, as they exorbiant amount of time on very basic things.
They would be fired from any serious buisness, when they can't make a simple correspondence with another person, but begins to ask having basic words explained.

When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.
Good analogy is the fundamental research in science. Money is not a good measure there.
Basic research (also called pure research or fundamental research) is a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena.[1] Basic research is executed without thought of a practical end goal, without specific applications or products in mind.[1] It includes all branches of science and engineering.[2]

Basic research has been described as arising out of curiosity.[3] Basic research is contrasted with applied research, which is research focused on a particular problem or application. Basic research lays the foundation for advancements in knowledge that lead to applied gains later on, occasionally as a result of unexpected discoveries.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research

Same goes in philosophy where basic reasearch of human thinking has give us science, democracy, human and animal rights, atheism, etc..

Basic things matter. :) Cozy chatters can be also more money-productive than crazy workers. :)
https://www.pmiwdc.org/article/peter-ta ... e-laziness
Very fancy words, but you state this without making any direct correlation to my posts, save following quote:
Good analogy is the fundamental research in science. Money is not a good measure there.
Says who?


Lets try..
HexHammer wrote:This is a good indication of why cozy chatters (socalled philosophers) are utterly useless, as they exorbiant amount of time on very basic things.
Mark Question wrote:Basic research (also called pure research or fundamental research) is a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena.[1]
Basic research has been described as arising out of curiosity.[3]

HexHammer wrote:They would be fired from any serious buisness, when they can't make a simple correspondence with another person, but begins to ask having basic words explained.

Mark Question wrote:Basic research is executed without thought of a practical end goal, without specific applications or products in mind.[1]
HexHammer wrote:When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.
Mark Question wrote:Basic research lays the foundation for advancements in knowledge that lead to applied gains later on, occasionally as a result of unexpected discoveries.[3]
HexHammer wrote:Says who?
Mark Question wrote:Basic research is contrasted with applied research, which is research focused on a particular problem or application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research
...do you see it now?

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by HexHammer » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:44 pm

Mark Question wrote:...do you see it now?
Yes I see that you lack rationallity, something "rain men" lacks, why they can't think critically.

Everything you hav said doesn't make sense, the same with uwot, he can parrot quite extraordinary lines from physics, and make elaborate equations, but he lacks very basic rationallity. So he can calculate like a savant, but can't think a tiny bit of abstract thoughts.

uwot
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by uwot » Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:51 am

HexHammer wrote:Everything you hav said doesn't make sense, the same with uwot, he can parrot quite extraordinary lines from physics, and make elaborate equations, but he lacks very basic rationallity. So he can calculate like a savant, but can't think a tiny bit of abstract thoughts.
That is an infamous accusation, Mr Hammer! I have made it quite clear that I cannot calculate for toffee.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests